Select Board Meeting — February 18, 2026

Gavin, are you good?

Yes.

Welcome everybody to the select board meeting Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 6:00 PM in the select board meeting room at the Town Hall on Peck Street in Seekonk.

Mass General Law Chapter 30A, subsection 20F requires any person recording must notify chair at the beginning of the meeting.

Is anybody seeing no one?

All select board meetings are recorded via audio and video and are broadcast live on Seekonk Channel 96.

I call the meeting to order at 6 PM.

Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Someone read the board and committee openings, please.

Madam Chair, volunteers are needed on the Capital Improvement Committee, 4 select board appointments, 3 moderator appointments.

Commission on Disability, 8 select board appointments.

Cultural Council, 2 select board appointments.

Economic Development Committee, 5 select board.

Energy Committee, 3 select board.

Finance Committee, 1 moderator.

Historical Commission, 3 select board.

Parks and Recreation, 1 position.

Recycling Committee, 1 select board appointment.

Zoning Board of Appeals, 2 alternates.

I'd like to say thank you to everybody who has put in, uh, talent bank forms.

We'll have a couple of appointments later on on the agenda, which is very, very great.

Um, and if anybody else is interested in running for or applying and getting on any of these committees Um, you can find the talent bank form online on the town's website.

Thank you.

Uh, just to let people know, we're going to go a little bit off of the agenda as it is here.

We have some special guests here tonight, so we kind of— you'll understand why we want to kind of do that first.

Okay, Kristen, we're going to announce the winner of the Town Clerk's I Voted contest.

Thank you for having us.

We're very excited to be able to announce the winners of the I Voted sticker contest.

Can you say who you are?

Kristen LaRue, Town Clerk.

Chandra Ferreira, Assistant Town Clerk.

So we started this project with the school department and the select board, as you know, several months ago, and we were trying to get maybe some more interest with the younger generation in our town, and we came up with an I Voted sticker contest, and we presented it to the schools.

And I am going to let Chandra explain how we handled the selection.

Absolutely.

We had 78 submissions that came in across all 4 schools.

They were categorized by grade level: K through 2, 3 through 5, 6 through 8, and 9 through 12.

We want to thank all of our judges that took part.

We had 6 judges across the school department, cultural council, select board, library, and human services and town administration for helping us select our winning designs.

The voting process was done by blind vote on a Google Form.

The only information that was available for the voters was a photograph of the drawing and the age, the grade level that it came from.

So I have copies of the actual winners right here.

This is all they saw was just this little section right here and which level it was from.

So we have gone through and the, the winners were selected, so we're ready to announce them.

And I think we have 3 out of the 4 here tonight.

Oh good, we sure do.

So for the kindergarten through grade 2 level, we have Dia Nasser.

Yay!

Do you like it?

Congratulations, you did a great job.

We'd like to take some pictures afterwards if you have a few minutes.

Um, for grades 3 through 5, our winner was voted Maya Gonzalez.

Through— for grades 6 through 8, our winner is actually on vacation.

She is in Disney World, much warmer climate, but it is Brooke Reyes.

And for our 9 through 12 grade group, we have Jaylen Albano.

Is Jaylen here?

Thoroughly enjoyed 6-7.

Yes, I voted.

If you go to our office down the hall, you'll see a big wall of 6-7.

We had some very creative, uh, designs submitted, so we appreciate all the kids participating and all the judges as well.

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Kristen, are you going to go down the hall now?

Okay.

Oh no, I'm good.

Recognition of Logan Gallagher for generously volunteering to clean stones at the Seekonk Cemetery.

Logan.

Madam Chair, I believe in your packet you'll see a couple of photographs of stones that Logan had cleaned for us at the Seekonk Cemetery.

I don't know if anybody out there can see it, but basically what Logan did Veterans, um, cemetery stones were unrecognizable, and he came up with a solution and did a lot of cleaning for us.

So you can actually see the wall now.

So I asked the board just to— asked if we could come today to say a quick thank you to Logan.

He is a member of the Scouting of America.

He's currently working on his Eagle Scout project with the Narragansett Council.

He contacted my office on September 16th to ask if he could help clean the headstones at the Seekonk Cemetery, which is at Newman Avenue near the Hurley Middle School.

He contacted Skip Borelli, who is our cemetery caretaker, and worked with him.

He came up with several photos of stones that he would like to clean for us.

And Skip took him over there and he completed the project on November 8th.

So I just wanted to say thank you very much for doing that.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, recognition of Kate Hibbert on the occasion of retirement after over 9 years of employment.

I am going to read the town proclamation.

Proclamation, Town of Seekonk, Massachusetts, in recognition of Kathleen Hibbert.

Whereas Kathleen began her career with the Town of Seekonk on October 3rd, 2016, and whereas Kathleen worked as the Associate Director of the Seekonk Library for almost 4 years, and whereas Kathleen took the position of Library Director on August 29th, 2020, And whereas Kathleen is retiring from her position as library director, concluding over 9 years of dedicated service to the town, and whereas on behalf of her colleagues, family, friends, and the residents of Seekonk, we recognize Kathleen's commitment, dedication, and exemplary service to the town.

Now therefore be it resolved on this 18th day of February, 2026, that the town administrator and select board extend their deepest gratitude and best wishes to Kate on the occasion of her retirement, honoring her contributions and wishing her happiness and health in the years ahead.

Her last day is going to be, I think, at the end of this month, and she is so dedicated still at this point that she is at a meeting for her library and not here tonight.

So that's how dedicated she is to the very end.

And she's also going to get one of these plaques for people who retire from here.

Get this town a seaconch clock.

Thank you, Kate.

Consider the appointment of Gary M. Jones Jr. to the Parks and Recs Committee, term to expire 2026.

Hi.

Hi.

Erica Harris, Parks and Recreation Coordinator.

We want to say thank you to Gary for coming out and filling out the talent bait form.

Sean, Brittany, and myself sat down, had a conversation with him, went really well.

He's got a lot of great ideas, and we look forward to him joining the team.

And his term's going to expire this year, so you have a couple months.

If you don't like it, you don't have to re-up, but you'll be notified because it's expiring.

You'll be notified by the town administrator's office.

They, they send you a letter asking you if you want to continue on your— on another 3-year— 3 years for your 3-year appointment.

So sounds good.

Okay.

Um, and then, Madam— oh, no, no, I was just going to add, uh, Madam Chair, that, um, Mr. Jones's family has been very active in the, uh, town of, of Seekonk, and then he's also very active in, uh, Parks and Rec as, uh, his kids play as well.

So my recommendation is that we appoint Mr. Gary Jones Jr. to the Parks and Rec Committee, term to expire in 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Any questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Thanks, Gary.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, consider the appointment of Matthew Collins to the Zoning Board of Appeals, term to expire 2027.

Is Matthew here?

Anybody from the Zoning Board of Appeals?

Well, that's okay.

No, uh, so, so my recommendation is that we appoint, uh, Matthew Collins, uh, to the Zoning Board of Appeals as an alternate with a term to expire in, uh, 2027.

I did have the opportunity to interview Mr. Collins.

He has just moved into the, uh, into the town, so he was looking to give back to the community, so He was very knowledgeable in the area of zoning, so I think he'd be a great fit.

Thank you.

So moved.

Second.

Any questions?

Anything from anyone?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Thank you.

Consider the appointment of Lori Sodade to the Historical Commission, term to expire 2027.

Lori?

Oh, there you are.

Uh, Madam Chair, I had the opportunity to sit down with Lori and we had a good conversation about the Historical Commission and, uh, all the fun that she's, uh, looking to, uh, to do and, and bring to the Historical Commission.

So my recommendation is that we appoint her, uh, with a term set to expire in 2027.

So moved.

Second.

Got a motion and second.

Any questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Thank you, Laura.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for volunteering.

Okay, community speaks.

Do we have anybody from the community who would like to step forward and speak?

Okay, seeing none at this time.

Uh, general business, fire chief presentation and discussion regarding staffing.

Evening, Chief.

Good evening.

Sean Whalen, Seekonk Fire Chief.

Madam Chair, select board members, Mr. Gadeem.

I come before you this evening to identify or to lay out a staffing plan for the Seekonk Fire Department.

Over my tenure in the organization, almost spanning 25 years, it's been identified through my career that there's always been a need for more staffing.

And as we continue to grow and operate in today's society, it's been identified to me and my administration that, that more staffing needs to be included to our operation daily.

To present a better community model than what we're currently operating at.

And that's what you're going to see here tonight.

The presentation is direct and to the point, and I'll open for conversation and clarification if so needed.

So, presentation overview has 6 components to it.

We'll identify the current department status, my recommendations on staffing, the financial impact of the recommendations that I'm going to present this evening, South End Fire Station overview, my recommendation for a path moving forward, and also the implementation strategy and financial impacts of the plan moving forward.

So where are we right now?

The Seekonk Fire Department currently operates out of 2 fire stations, 500 Taunton Avenue and 30 Pine Street.

Affectionately known as the Banner Fire Station, named after a lost comrade in 1977.

We currently operate with 45 firefighters.

That excludes my administrative assistant but does include myself, the deputy chief, 2 administrative captains, and an EMS lieutenant.

We operate with a 4-group structure, and 10 firefighters are funded per shift.

Current staffing model.

We currently operate with 5 to 6 firefighters per shift out of headquarters.

Currently, that allows us to operate Engine 1, Ladder 1, and Rescue 1 effectively out of headquarters.

When Banner Fire Station is staffed to the fullest extent, we are operating an engine and a rescue out of there, and they're identified as Engine 2 and Rescue 2.

And anyway, based on any shift that can dictate or that can deviate from 4 to 5 firefighters per shift.

And what I mean by that is that we have current paramedics that need mentor status, so we're currently adjusting staff operationally every day to meet the needs of our young paramedics and just based on the needs and the demands of the community.

So every day our staff fluctuates from station to station.

Currently, the ladder truck is not currently staffed.

It's cross-staffed only during, during minimum staffing levels.

When we are operating with the, uh, the 10 operating fully, which we haven't been able to achieve since my tenure as Fire Chief due to long-term IODs.

We currently have 3 on, uh, engine on duty status, and we currently have 3 vacancies, uh, that we're trying to actively fill.

So just right now, and that's gotten better over the course of my tenure, but we haven't been able to achieve current maximum staffing levels.

So on paper, we're staffed, we're fully staffed.

But we do have some IODs that are long-term and also 3 vacancies that have just occurred that we're trying to fill.

So with that, the ladder truck is currently being cross-staffed by a rescue company.

And Rescue 3, which we just so graciously were awarded the money to roll up to an advanced life support ambulance, that was brought online and potentially that can be used during impact shifts when the staffing is allowed.

So let's get to the meat and potatoes of my, my staffing recommendations.

I propose moving forward, Seekonk firefighters operate with 13 firefighters on duty per shift.

That's 13 firefighters funded per shift.

That would be an increase of 12 firefighters.

Minimum manning gets increased to a 9 firefighter per day per shift.

We currently are operating at a 6-man minimum.

As our minimum standards.

I'm recommending a manning of 9 per shift per day.

What that allows us to do is we operate out of headquarters with a shifting shift and staffing models to allow us to potentially promote one shift captain, one shift commander, which allows a 24-hour day, 7-day-a-week command presence for our organization.

Not only does that provide an additional layer of protection for our firefighters responding out to various calls during the course of the day.

It also gives a buffer between myself, the administration, and the apparatus bay floor where we can have a little bit larger span of control over the 2 fire stations, and we can also achieve more of our benchmarks and start moving forward in our organization.

You can see the staffing at the headquarters station.

That includes one captain, Engine 1, Rescue 1, and Ladder 1 would all be staffed.

And that would be the first time Ladder Company in the history of SECONC would be fully staffed.

Banner Fire Station would operate with Engine 2 and Rescue 2, both of those companies both being staffed with either 2 or 3 fire— well, 2 firefighters on all the rescues.

I should just go ahead and point that out.

Our ambulances or rescue operate with 2 firefighters per shift, and those firefighters are paramedics as well.

Our engine companies have the ability to flex down to a 2-person minimum.

I personally would like to see them maintain a 3-person staff minimum, and that reflects a lieutenant and 2 firefighter paramedics assigned to each unit.

Part of my takeaway is that funding of a 13 per shift ensures that full apparatus coverage from both stations while minimizing overtime.

What allows us to do is fund and manage a shift of strength of 13 but also gives the managerial rights for us to flex down to a minimum staffing level of 9 each day.

That has an impact when you're looking at long-term IODs, which I just identified, sick leave, vacation leave.

That allows us the levity to go ahead and reduce that shift strength, but then also still have a higher shift minimum that we currently have to allow us to provide a better service model to the community.

With that, we're also including a staffing of a shift commander, which guarantees the command presence on every, every and leadership in every shift.

And a 13-personnel shift allows for flexibility daily.

And that's the deployment of ladder, the ladder out of headquarters and the station too.

To clarify on that point, if we're running with 13 staff daily, we can encapsulate a full-time ladder company.

But as we drop down to that 9-man minimum, unfortunately we would have to revert back to a cross-manning capacity on the ladder truck.

So far, the financial impacts on these recommendations: the new staffing costs, salary for the 12 firefighters based on $100,000 per firefighter, and take-on cost is $1.2 million.

Turnout gear is approximately $5,400 per set to a total of $64,800.

Command restructure costs, the 4 new captains, that's just creating The leap from lieutenant to captain that has an anticipated cost of $33,500, and the backfilling of those 4 additional lieutenants for a cost of $45,500.

Now I'll just— I'll put it out that this is speculation.

We have yet to negotiate anything with the union.

This is obviously set forth and moving forward.

This is just me trying to encapsulate what I can project out for salaries and projected cost increases in the community.

Some of the capital needs, a new engine company to replace the aging engine too, which is 2017, 2017 model that has a cost of about $1 million, and new ambulance to replace the aging fleet for a cost of about $525,000.

So total cost of this plan is $2.9 million, one-time cost about $1.6 million, and recurring cost of $1.3 million.

So South End Fire Station overview from my perspective.

Current construction costs from what I've been able to obtain based on the 2023 bids that we received is $11.2 million.

Capital costs again would require $1.5 or $1.6 million for an additional engine and rescue.

Staffing costs of an additional 8 firefighters just designed to specifically put a plan in place to staff that station is 8 additional firefighters to the 12 I've already identified, for another additional staffing cost of $843,200.

So over the course of this time, if we're going to put a South End fire station online, we're looking at an additional 20 firefighters in order for us to do that.

The building cost, maintenance, heating, general infrastructure for that building, and using Banna Fire Station as a model for that, is anticipated to be around $35,000 each year for operating costs of that station.

So based on my staffing plan recommendation moving forward, priority 1, increase staffing to 13 firefighters per group.

This ensures safer, safer minimum staffing levels for emergency response and firefighter safety, provides apparatus coverage across both stations, and reduce our overtime costs overall caused by the vacancies and the short staffs that we currently see with our long-term injury and vacancies due to vacation time and other means of paid time off.

It allows operational flexibility to deploy resources when the demand is highest, and it builds a stable staffing foundation needed to effectively operate any future fire stations.

My next priority— my next priority after that would be to entertain the South End Fire Station project.

Once staffing has been increased and staffing has been increased, we then can start looking at a South End fire station.

Once prior— and it clearly states in that right there that my priority 2 for South End fire station, once priority 1 is achieved, we can then focus in on advancing a South End fire station.

Implementation strategy for this plan.

You can see in FY27, 4 new firefighters, the re-rank structure of 4 new captains, and backfilling for the lieutenants.

Where we have a current middle shift, a middle category there at the 10 firefighters per shift, with the increase of the 4 firefighters additional to the FY27 budget, the modified firefighter group would then rise to 11, so on and so forth in the other line items.

In FY 2028, you can see we're going to implement another additional hire of 4 new firefighters, bringing us to a 12 per shift staffing level.

And then FY 29, 13 per shift.

That would conclude the 4 final hires for the total of 12.

And each year you have a budget impact listed out.

In FY 27, we have a potential budget impact, and again, I just am using broad numbers that I could identify to the best of my ability, somewhere in the range of $500,600.

And again, that goes through the course of the other years.

And if you look up in the top red box, anticipated FY27 budget increases for the fire department would be somewhere in the area of 11%.

So I'm just going to jump on— jump in on these 2 slides here.

So the point of these slides, one, is just to look at the overall impact for the operational budget.

I know the chief went through just looking at the impact it would have on the fire department budget.

So what we ended up doing was just taking a forecast of our anticipated revenue for fiscal years '27 through '30, and then anticipated the forecasted expenses and showed a surplus of deficit.

So essentially, when we submit a budget to you, it's a balanced budget.

What you don't see behind the scenes is obviously, um, you know, the deficit or the budget gap that we've got to make up.

So this is truly just showing what our anticipated costs are going to be.

So for example, fiscal year 2027, the school department, we're anticipating about a 5% request.

I know we typically do a 2.5%, 3%, but they've consistently coming in at 4 to 5%.

So the forecasted expense is showing a 5% year over year, uh, for the schools.

So essentially what we're trying to capture here is, is obviously there are competing interests, uh, which I think the board is, is aware of.

Um, so when we start looking at public safety versus other departments, um, there's going to be significant, um, competing interests that we're going to have to deal with in order to, to balance the budget.

So that being said, uh, when we start looking at the overall budget, you've got the school department, which is 50% of our budget.

And then you start looking at the town side, 50% of the town side is just fixed costs.

So when you stop looking at trying to reduce that $3.6 million, there's only a couple of places that you can really pull from.

Even if you eliminated, removed all the public safety departments and eliminated all the other functions in town, you would not be able to close that, those gaps there.

So essentially what we would be looking for is, is pulling from the school department and/or public safety to to really close these gaps if we're going to make significant differences in the closing of the gap there.

So in fiscal year '27, based on the numbers, and those are based on the chief's staffing numbers, so fiscal year '27, which is actually in the operating budget, 4 new firefighters plus the 4 additional captains with the backfill of the lieutenants, that's what's in those forecasted expenses there.

The deficit or the budget gap we would have to close is $3.6 million.

Fiscal year '28, we'd be adding an additional 4 firefighters.

That would give us a budget gap of $5.5 million.

Fiscal year '29, a budget gap of $7.1 million, and then a budget gap of $8.7 million based on the staffing model that the chief has, has presented.

So just in terms of revenue, so we're looking at level-funded revenue for new growth, especially when we start looking at this fiscal year.

The building department has not seen a whole lot of new building permits coming in.

It's a lot of A&Rs that are coming through.

We do have some of the commercial property coming online, which is really kind of helping to stabilize that consistency.

In terms of Chapter 70, anticipated about a 2% increase, and then our local local revenue— local receipts are pretty much at a 3 to 4% increase year over year.

And again, all estimates, and then obviously that's subject to change based on the economy as we move forward or any additional new revenue that we might be able to find.

But as of right now, this is what we've captured.

I'll go on to the next slide, but I just noticed what I was looking ahead— fiscal year '29 and '30 numbers are off on the revenue, so there's a There's a million-dollar difference there, so I'll go back and double-check what the accurate numbers are, if it's Priority 1 or Priority 2 in terms of forecasted revenue, but those revenue numbers should be identical.

So I'll just confirm that, but overall, you'll get a sense of where we stand.

So next slide.

Priority 2.

So this is now capturing the chief's staffing model.

At the 13 firefighters as we had previously had on Priority 1.

But this is also capturing the costs for the South End Fire Station.

So the only thing that's going to be captured in this is not going to be the cost of the actual fire station because that's going to be a debt exclusion.

So if that gets passed, there's no financial implication to the operating budget.

And then also any of the equipment, so the apparatus, so the engine or an ambulance would also either be through borrowing or stabilization accounts.

So I'm assuming that there's no impact on that.

So we would be looking at solely the additional 8 firefighters that the chief had mentioned, plus the cost of operating the station itself.

So that's where you get those changes in.

It was quick, to the point.

I didn't have comparables.

I didn't add any other fluff to the presentation.

Thank you.

So thank you for your time.

I don't want you to leave yet because I do have a question.

Now, all the numbers and everything that you've given us now is to bring our present— your— ours, SEACOM's present staff up to where you think is where it should be.

Correct.

Right.

So This doesn't include the additional stuff for another, uh, station.

It does not.

So the one thing I wanted to point out was, um, or ask you is, under your capital needs, that is something for today, I mean this season.

And you said a new engine to replace the aging Engine 2 is about $1 million, but what is the projected delivery date for that?

I mean, say, did you— we haven't ordered one yet, we order one today, how long is it going to take SEACOMP to get it?

Depends on what sort of model we look for.

Ours are basically identified as full custom based on what we need for our organization.

That's a lower reduced hose bed, some different things that, uh, the truck committees identify, um, we can have that somewhere in the time range of 3 years.

3 years.

I know you can't be exact, and that's fine.

And then— no, there are— there are the rescue, um, the rescue we could get in about 2 years.

Yep.

We could probably speed that up based on some information I just received last week, but I would estimate somewhere in the time frame of 2 years.

But that's— and those are just to, uh, uh, replace your present equipment, correct?

That is in my capital improvement plan for FY27.

May I comment on that, Madam Chair, when you're done?

Well, I will ask if anybody else has any questions.

Go right ahead.

Okay, um, we made a big mistake a couple years ago when we ordered the truck that's on order and it's going to be due in next year in 2027.

And that involved trading in 2 trucks, so it's a net loss of 1 engine company.

I know last year you put in for an engine and you were denied.

You know, I had a discussion with the salesman.

Um, he informed me that the truck that we ordered— that I guess it was a good thing that we ordered it when we did— and we're paying $1,050,000 for it, there's been 5 price increases.

It's not going to affect us, but that same truck would probably be $1.2 or $1.3 million, right?

He did inform me that they have a, like, a standard model, if you will, that he said is 90% of the truck that, that is on order, including the 1,000-gallon water tank.

It could be— and I would— I asked him what the price tag was, and he said 875 to 900.

And I said 3-year wait, and he said no, it could be here in 90 days.

So when I see the trucks that you've been borrowing from East Providence and Rehoboth and everything, our trucks are breaking down.

We need a new engine now.

And if, with the permission of the board, I'd like to ask the chief if it's all right if he just looks into what I was told to be accurate.

And if it is, I'd be more than willing to sponsor a $900,000 warrant article for our town meeting because we've got 3 engines.

The oldest one, the reserve, is a 1999.

We should have never gotten rid of the other one.

I know it needed some work and everything, but it's put us in a deficit.

If we're using one of those reserve engines as a primary, we have a big event, you can't call people back because you've got nothing to put them on.

So I just think that— I mean, apparatus is a big thing going on with fire trucks, uh, the price of them and the delivery and everything.

But when the salesman told me it's 90% of what you ordered, it's— it would be $300,000 to $400,000 less than comparable to what you've ordered that's coming in in a year, and it couldn't be here in 90 days.

And I think we should we should pursue that.

If I could, in regards to that, in regards to the fire trucks, so the chief inherited the 2 trucks being returned.

He did not order this truck, right?

I just want to make that clear.

Correct.

So you can't, you can't really be blaming the chief for the situation that 2 trucks were given up to get this one.

I will say that the department over the years has gut-off-the-shelf, off-the-parking-lot fire trucks.

And yeah, they'll work, but they don't work what the department needs.

So the department many years ago changed direction and started making custom-built trucks to accommodate all the equipment that we have to carry because we operate out of 2 stations.

Years ago it was 1 station.

When the Public Safety was first built, it was only 1 station.

So we had to accommodate to carry a lot of equipment.

On those trucks, and we didn't have the availability to do that.

So we had to rely on mutual aid a lot more than we do now.

So the trucks got redesigned so we could carry the equipment that we need.

And it goes all the way back to when we bought the ladder truck, the newest ladder truck.

We modified that.

Then the next engine we bought, we took some of the stuff that we put on the ladder truck and put on the engine because we found that we can't get our ladder truck out because it's not staffed.

So we had to keep redesigning our fire trucks.

And I understand that there's been a time delay on this truck you know, lengthier than most.

But I do think that when it comes to ordering of fire trucks and fire apparatus, whether it's a fire truck or an ambulance, that should be left up to the chief and his staff, to what they need and how they want to design it.

And we should support what they come forward with.

That's just me as a person.

Well, I, I would just suggest that he look into it, and if he doesn't think it's going to work, then we'll forget it.

But I think it should be at least pursued.

Well, especially— I think the fire chief can run his own department and not get micromanaged by anybody else.

I ain't micromanaging anything.

Excuse Excuse me.

So, Chief, we back you and your whole department, and we want to give you the top of the line and as much as we can, and you know that.

Um, from what I get from this is that you want more for your present 2 fire stations as far as staffing and equipment go so that you can be up to a safe level for your firefighters and for the town of Seekonk.

So if— and then, like you said, your priority 2, once you have your priority 1 with your staffing level up to protect your firefighters and the town, and you have the equipment that you need, that you have, you put in, you said you need to be replaced, then you can see going into another fire station.

But until that happens, the safety of your firefighters and the town would benefit more from your priority 1 and then go into your priority 2, which I'm taking your word for it because I'm not a firefighter.

You guys do that, I'm taking you on your word, and that's what you need.

So that is what I am going to support, whether I'm sitting in this chair or out voting at the polls.

Thank you.

Thank you for this.

This is plain and concise and wonderful, and I hope we can get even more money to push you forward in your priority one, to get you and your men, your employees, the firefighters, to where they— you say they need to be.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, and, uh, that is always in the back of my mind.

Since I've been gainfully employed in this community, I know that the board's— town administration has always been very supportive of the fire department.

We understand there's competing interests across the town, across every city.

There's competing interests across the board.

We understand that.

But we do appreciate the support, and it doesn't go unnoticed.

I can assure you that.

Thank you very much.

Well, can I just ask the chief to just elaborate on the vehicle itself?

Because I don't want the general public thinking we just gave away an engine because we didn't want it.

So no, so then there were some repairs that could be made, but there was a lot more than just $30,000 that needed to be repaired for that, that engine, correct?

There was an underlying issue that through diagnosis and multiple shops we couldn't identify why the vehicle would overheat during a pump test.

Try and try to duplicate it every time that we were out in the driveway, couldn't do it.

When under test load, uh, it would throw a check engine light, it would shut down the, uh, the test, and it would not pass pump testing.

Uh, what that number would be for certification— that, that, that truck wouldn't— it would have been able to be certified as pumped.

It could not receive its pump certification.

Thank you.

Um, with that being said, I don't know.

We didn't explore the option.

And to select Board Healy's, uh, comment, that was prior to my administration.

I don't know what that vehicle would have cost us internally to, to prevent that truck from continuing to do that.

I didn't have the options to explore.

It wasn't my— it wasn't my purview at the time.

The information that I was provided by the chief was a $30,000 estimate to repair it.

And instead of putting 30 grand into it and having a reserve truck, it was traded in for $2,800, which I know it wasn't you.

But made no sense whatsoever.

But there's a few other things while we're talking about— but that's, that's not my understanding.

So, so I don't— we can go back and forth, and I, I, you know, not looking to Monday morning quarterback, but right, it was $30,000 to repair it.

That would, that would not repair the pump.

It would have required a lot more money to— well, first of all, you couldn't even figure out what was wrong with the pump to get the certification, correct?

That's not what the information I was provided, but No, that's, that's the only reason I want to clarify that.

I was— the information I was provided was yes, $30,000.

And okay, but I'd like to talk more about staffing.

Okay, you, you mentioned 6 minimum.

How often do you run a 6 minimum?

There's a lot of variables to that, Mr., uh, Select Board Member, uh, Sagar.

I think daily based on my shortfalls with the long-term IODs and shortages currently.

I would say out of a 7-day cycle, we're probably at minimum 3 to 4 days of the 7-day cycle.

I've been increasing overtime through the weekends to maintain 8 on duty.

That starts Friday night through Monday morning.

So I can ensure the, the community that we do have staffing available, increased staffing over the weekends, but, uh, to minimum 6 is, is quite, quite often, sir.

All right, so my understanding, when we have 6, okay, you have 2 at Banner and you have 4 at headquarters.

That is correct.

Okay, so a rescue run that would take Rescue 2 that was an ALS would require Rescue 2 out of Banner and the engine out of headquarters, correct?

Most days, but depending on the severity, uh, we also can throw EMS 1 at that call as well, and that operates Monday through Thursday.

But at night or on weekends, that would be the scenario?

Extended response, yes.

Yes.

So at that point in time, we have no— we have no fire suppression capability depending on the severity of the ALS call in the North End.

Um, more often than not, and I give credit to my staff, based on what we're hearing over the radio, they'll deviate from that priority call, try and backfill it through mutual aid, and respond to the other incident.

During simultaneous incidents, which occurs every day in our community, the officer on the engine company is deviating from responses based on the needs of the secondary or third call that's coming in.

So more often than not, our engine company is breaking and responding to a structure fire, I know for, for 100% assurity they would break from that incident and respond to the structure fire.

But in the middle of the night, the scenario would be we would have no fire suppression capabilities?

No, based on what I just said, they would break from that incident and they respond to the structure fire.

So let's talk about necessary to all fire departments is over time.

You provided me with information of some comparison to other communities.

Um, the town of North Attleboro, which has a population of 31,000, has $990,000.

Mr. Sagan, I'm going to stop you right there.

We're not talking about North Attleboro.

Well, this is— we are not talking about me.

This all ties in.

This all ties in.

Talking about Seacock.

Okay, let's get back to Seacock.

Okay, so Seacock's overtime budget has been reduced to $200,000, correct?

That is the current overtime line.

Yes.

Okay, and when you do that percentage of the total of the budget, that's 4.11% for the whole fire department overtime budget.

Yet in the neighboring communities, the overtime is 11 to 15%.

So we are grossly, grossly underfunded.

My response to that point, Mr. Segar, is that those communities have a funded per shift and they hold a higher minimum.

So those companies operate with a 9 or 10 person funded shift, and they're operating somewhere in the range of 8 to 9 firefighters.

So almost every day they're, they're requiring overtime to operate.

Where us, where we have the leverage to dictate a drop-down service model to 6, the swing from 10 to 6 allows us to have a lower, lower overtime budget.

So you think $200,000 is adequate?

Uh, $200,000 does not allow me to provide a service model to this community that I am comfortable with.

Okay, case in point, over the weekend, all right, we helped out Fire Department, help, help, North Attleboro.

They had 2 house fires back to back.

The first one required rescue, the people trapped.

Under your 6-person, if they're out on a rescue call, there's nobody to go and rescue anybody.

Well, no, I rely on mutual aid.

Well, I find that statement to be inaccurate.

As I identified previously, engine companies are going to break from a scenario respond to a structure fire if they can.

If they can.

And 10 out of 10 times, I know my staff, most of them are behind me, they would respond to the same— respond to you, sir, the same way I just responded to you.

They would break for a structure fire, including or especially including entrapment.

Now, as far as funds go, we have 2 lines in the budget for the Fire Department.

Uh, payroll and expenses, correct?

All right, so when you have now 3 vacancies, those budget— those salaries were budgeted all year long, and they— people left the employee throughout different times of the year.

So you're going to have to have surplus in that, in that line of probably— well, if it's— if a full-step firefighter salary is $75,000, that's what I see in advertisements.

For, uh, and if they left in the year, there's going to be $100,000 to $150,000 somewhere around there.

There is a short— there is a surplus, yes.

And I can— I can— I didn't bring my budget, but there is a salary surplus, yes.

What we did last year was, and I guess we do it quite often, there was a surplus of $80,796 at the year end, and the fire department was made to run short Throughout the year, and instead we use that $80,000 to balance the budget.

Can I just correct you?

They were made as if I directed him to run short.

Is that what you're saying?

Well, he had to run short if he didn't have the money for the overtime, right?

He had to run short because he had— well, yes, he had $300,000 on top of that left.

We had 6 vacancies that we had to hire, right?

We budgeted for hiring through the full year.

By the time he hires them, you got a savings that's already built in.

Right?

So that's where you're going to get your savings.

So he has never once come to me and say that he was running short and needed additional funds and, and not received it, right?

So what I would tell you is, is that the support— and this is why we're here.

I mean, we're looking at talking about what the chief wants to see.

He's asking for 13 firefighters.

And like I've said to the, to the board, I put together a budget, I provide a balanced budget, and then I ask you folks which direction we're going to go in, right?

So I I push back on the schools, we push back on the schools, we give it to the police, we give it to the fire.

I can go down the laundry list of what I've given to the fire department.

And in fact, I think we should do that, because if folks are going to try to suggest that I am not supportive of the fire department and I don't give the fire department the resources that they need, that's just inaccurate and not a good, I guess, picture of what's really taking place.

So since I've been here, 2014, We had 30 full-time firefighters, all right, 7 firefighters per group.

The Vanna Fire Station was just completed.

In 2016, we added 4 firefighters, bringing it to 34 FTEs and 8 firefighters per group.

2017, we added a captain, right, that was bringing it to 35 FTEs.

2018, we added an additional 4 firefighters, bringing it to 39 FTEs, 9 firefighters per group.

FY 2019, we added 1 deputy, bringing it to 40.

FY '20, we converted 4 firefighters into 4 lieutenant positions, doubling the number of lieutenants to ensure 2 per shift.

2024, we added an EMS coordinator and 4 firefighters, bringing it to 45 FTEs, making it 10 firefighters per group.

And we continue to try to get to the 12.

And that doesn't even include the 2.5— $4 million in capital items and the $4.9 million increase in the budget from '14 to now.

So anytime— and Chief Healey, he was there, he knows— anybody coming into my office, any department head that has asked for resources or support from Public Safety or any department, I am 100% supportive of that.

At the end of the day, we have a budget and we have to work within within the constraints that we have.

And but at no point did he— did the chief or any chief come to me and say that we needed to have, you know, additional overtime because they felt like the department was not safe.

To your point though, Mr. Segar, we do have a salary overage.

If you divide my overtime line monthly at $16,600 I can spend each month in overtime with no surplus salary.

This year, identifying I do have surplus salary, just this month alone we're about $23,000 more than we're supposed to be in the month of February based on me identifying that we have surplus in salary, having the availability to shift that surplus over to overtime, identifying that I wanted more staff on the weekends, and I've thoroughly— I've managed that.

I've shifted the money over and creating staff, increased staffing on the weekends.

I currently monitor the budget daily.

When I see a surplus in salary, I manage that overtime, and I, and I put extra staff on when I can see that.

But I'm not a soothsayer.

I can't anticipate what the future has for us.

All of that overtime encapsulates everything from me backfilling for a vacation to a potential structure fire, we're operating for 10 hours tomorrow.

I can't predict what that future looks like, so I try to manage as best as I possibly can.

If you're referencing last year's budget, apparently we were able to manage it a little bit better than the year previous, and we did have a surplus in, in salary.

But to your point, I am identifying where we have surplus, and I'm overspending monthly based on what I have available.

And in a perfect world, I think everybody at this table understands that Yes, we've got 45 firefighters that we've budgeted for, similar to the, to the police department.

Mm-hmm.

But give me a year that we've actually been fully staffed.

It's never happened, either through people leaving the department, IODs, whatever the case may be.

So to be fully staffed is unheard of.

We're constantly chasing numbers.

So you're always gonna have a surplus in the salary items, you're gonna have overtime.

But the question and the balance that the chiefs have to have, and when these are conversations that we constantly have, is burnout rate, right?

You can, you can have $500,000, and if you don't have $500,000 in overtime and you don't have the staff, right, and we're gonna force and start bringing people back, then you're gonna have burnout, and then you're gonna have people leaving, and it's an unsafe situation.

So you've, you've got to find what that balance looks like.

I know having conversations with the chief, he has difficulty filling overtime as it stands now, both in police and fire.

It's not what it used to be before where you put out overtime and everybody wants overtime.

That's just not what we're seeing.

So if we want to throw $1 million at overtime and start telling people we're going to bring them back, then that's fine.

I think we're just— we're looking at this at the wrong— in the wrong light.

I think if we're all in support of the fire department, the chief is asking for 13 firefighters.

Let's support 13 firefighters.

My stance to every single person at this table is, is that the commitment should be for 13 firefighters.

Right.

But that means based on the forecast that I've put out there, we're going to have some difficult conversations with other departments, right?

And at the end of the day, like I said, these are big numbers, so they're going to come from either public safety or the schools, and that's the reality of the situation.

So I don't think anybody is saying that the firefighters don't deserve it.

We just need to figure out what that number is.

And I'm listening to the chief, and the chief says that's 13.

And I made, I made it very, very clear when we were working on this presentation, I do not want any influence on this presentation.

I want the recommendation coming from the chief, and this is his recommendation.

And as I have done with every public safety chief before me, is support what their recommendation is.

So he's looking for 13.

The numbers are staggering, and that's just what they are.

And I will say, moving forward, public safety is getting more and more expensive.

When we start looking at technology, we start looking at the apparatus and the equipment and the training, it's just becoming more more and more expensive to properly fund and provide the resources to public safety.

So, and our revenues are just not keeping up, right?

And there's not a whole lot of additional revenues that we can find.

So again, we just need to be prepared for very difficult discussions and, and supporting both, you know, not just the fire department but the police department as well.

So I think the chief has done a phenomenal job putting this, this together, and, and I think the conversation should be had about, you know, whether or not you agree with the staffing levels.

The overtime, I mean, at a minimum, in a best— in a best-case scenario, right, what, 13?

Well, listen, if we're at 13, overtime should be reduced anyways, right?

Then you should have a savings.

But we need to figure out what that number looks like so we're not having the burnout.

We shouldn't just be operating just on overtime, right?

But 6 is ridiculous for this town.

Endangers the life and safety of our residents and the firefighters.

Well, you can say what you want about that, but he's been trying since the day he sat in, in that chair to hire firefighters and keep them here.

We have an in-and-out situation with the fire department and the police department.

It's not like he's sitting down not doing anything about it.

We know that the staffing needs to to be up.

We— he is trying, we are trying, getting his numbers and getting the staff.

You can't just say, well, it's ridiculous, we need 4 more, so go out and hire 4 more.

We— it doesn't— it's not tomorrow we're going to hire 4 more.

It takes time.

Everybody that's on social media has already seen that there's an add-in for lateral transfers, which is a little bit easier for the fire department because they're already trained firefighters.

But they still need a guidance to get in.

It's not like you can just, you know, yeah, hire me as a firefighter, stick me in on an engine.

I mean, this is not something that happens overnight.

There's a process.

And he's been looking to staff and restaff ever since he sat there.

Go.

But at a minimum— Go ahead.

Go.

Okay, thanks.

You're welcome.

First off, Chief, thank you.

This presentation.

It's not easy to sit in that seat, trust me, I know.

You want to change seats?

Making, making, making— no, making a presentation like that, yeah, there's a lot of factors that go into it.

And you know, your number one priority is to protect your firefighters, okay, first and foremost, before anything, and the residents of this community, which you do.

And every single one of those guys behind you do it every single day.

You know where I stand about staffing.

It's been understaffed since I was on job.

All right, we asked the chief to make a presentation.

He's made it.

Okay, he's given us one priority and 2 priorities.

Now it is our job to figure out how we're going to get those guys for the fire department to help him protect his firefighters and the residents of this community according to what he sees as the best plan for the fire department.

Not what I think, not what anybody on this board thinks how the fire department should run, because I'll tell you, I When politics gets involved in public safety, people get hurt.

People die because we make bad decisions up here, because we don't know your department.

We don't know what it takes to run it.

We might think we do.

We might have an opinion.

We might look in a different view, but we don't.

Okay, you know what it takes to run your department, and that's why I will sit here until I get off this board, whenever that might be, or if someone throws me off, and defend that fire department or public safety or any department in this town that needs help.

All right.

The number one priority is to protect the firefighters of this community.

They've been running at an unsafe level for way too long.

Okay.

And there are so many scenarios we can put out there.

What if this?

What if that?

Oh, with 6 guys on duty, 8 guys on duty, you could have 13 guys on duty all day long and you could be busy tied up and you can still have a structure fire and not have anybody to send.

That happens all the time.

You look at every other community, happens everywhere.

Okay, so in reality, it can happen anywhere.

We need to come up with this plan.

We asked you for a plan.

I appreciate all the hard work you put into this in your presentation.

It is our job now to figure out how we're going to get you the money.

All right, so in the first year, we're looking at a $3.6 million deficit, if I understand your slide correctly.

Well, that's with 4 new firefighters, the 4 captains, and 4 lieutenants in that number, right, Mr. Gadeen?

Correct.

So now what's the reality of that happening?

Without making tough decisions.

We're gonna have to make tough decisions to come up with $3.6 million right off the rip right now, and that's without negotiating or anything else.

The impact of it, that's going to be a tough fight.

Okay, so then now what do we do?

We have to look at maybe an alternative method.

Maybe if we can't get them for a full year, we look at a half-year hire and we try to plan for the future.

So everybody's got to understand that this isn't going to happen today.

Those are big numbers to overcome.

Okay, so I appreciate the fact that you made a presentation.

We have it.

It is now our job as this Board of Selectmen, along with the town administrator, to figure out how we're going to help you.

And just to continue to sit here to— I don't want to say beat you up and question you and how you're going to run your department and the staffing and this and that— this problem you inherited.

This has been an ongoing problem with that fire department, okay?

You're not going to fix it overnight, so don't take it personally, please.

I'm not, sir.

No, I just don't— I don't want you to, because it's very difficult to sit there and feel like you're being undermined and undermanaged or undercut sometimes.

And that's how it comes across when we start questioning what's going on, and the guys behind you, that's how they take it.

Then we wonder why people leave.

Then we wonder why people leave.

You got my full support, Chief.

Thank you for your plan.

Thanks, sir.

Yes, I'd like to thank you too, and your firefighters.

Um, I also like to thank the mutual aid, not only that your, your department gives to other departments, but other departments give to us.

I am— I apologize to the other fire departments that I don't want to hear from that were asked for figures that we did not ask you to get or other people to get.

I am a stunt— I support Seekonk.

I care about Seekonk.

I know where our money is, where the money is, what's coming in, try to get it to the best place so that we can.

Other departments are other departments, and I love them all, but don't bring me that.

Don't bring me that.

We're not compared.

We are not Norton.

We are not North Attleboro or Mansfield.

We are Seekonk, and together we'll improve every department in this town.

But Chief, I just want to say thank you for this presentation and for all the work that you do.

I know it's a tough spot to be in trying to balance budgets and, and keep all your firefighters safe.

So I'm actually 100%, you know, supportive of, of the model that you put forward today.

And I know you put a lot of work into this.

You've been working on it for a long time.

So I, I for one greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just so you know, just because I gave the presentation, I'm not walking away from it either.

I'm here to support anything and initiatives and whatever you need me to do.

Uh, presentation's here.

Yeah, you good, Sean?

On the spot?

Are we good?

Are we good?

Everybody good?

You're good?

Hey, are you going to stick around for a minute?

I'm here all night, sir.

Oh, okay.

He loves staying here with us.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

And thank all the firefighters for coming to support your chief.

It's not like we don't see— don't know you're hiding back there.

We see you.

Okay, continue discussion of a South End fire station and vote regarding a ballot question.

Okay, you want to up there?

Yes, please.

All right, I'll give you that.

I'll give you that.

Can we— yeah.

Which one?

The arrow.

This way.

So this, uh, we got this from Okay, so I put this together concerning the South End Fire Station, and we have to go back in history.

Remember, it was this board that initiated this whole proposal back in 2020.

Yeah, so, so here we have the headquarters fire station that was opened in 2005.

And anyone that was in this town for a period of time knows the history and how long it took.

And that was marketed that this was going to be the, the only station that we needed in town.

Well, within 4 years, we were before town meeting and asking for money to build this because of the response times.

And it was all about response times, response time, response times.

We opened it up, there was no additional manpower, and Chief Healey opened it up and he had operated using, uh, overtime funds.

So going forward, that building has done its job in putting resources in the north end of town.

Unfortunately, because of the way things are run right now, spends a lot of time south of Route 44 and other parts of the town, leaving the north end totally vacant.

So the Board of Selectmen back in 2020 asked Tom Meating to, uh, $425,000 to, uh, design a South End fire station.

The original version of it was going to include communications.

That, uh, is no longer the case, and the committee has suggested that the area designated for communication could be like a police outpost.

And I know the police chief after the town meeting said to me, well, he thought it might, might use it as a training room, but that hasn't happened, as certainly as of now.

So the interesting thing with this building is it, uh, it's a very simple design.

Uh, it did go out to bid, and I think it was It was over $11 million.

$11.2.

$11.2.

Okay, so it was done away with.

Uh, the chairman of the building committee, being a very forward-thinking person and in the construction business himself, applied for the building permit which froze the plans so that we could use them with the old, uh, energy code, which is— will save a tremendous amount of money.

So what I've looked at, and this I'll have to give credit where credit is due, the, the plan itself on redoing the responses came from the chairman of the building committee, Mr. Tessino, and If we look, we go right now— let me see, I'll go to Map 1.

And this shows the current status with 10 people, 5 people at the banner, 5 people at the headquarters.

As the chief alluded to, there's not many days that 10 people show up, just because of a whole host of reasons.

So under the, the minimum standard on map number 2 of 6, it would put 2 people at the Banner Station and 4 people at the headquarters.

Now the difficulty with the headquarters station now is the long, very long response times to the South End.

I know when you told town meeting it was— you'd like to see 4, but it's closer to 7.

It's really a lot of times 9 to 12, and it can be even more than that.

So, and as traffic increases and increases, the response down to the South End is going to be very, very difficult to do.

So in a changed model on 3.

What we're suggesting is instead of trying to just man the banner and headquarters, we take staff out of the headquarters, leave 2 people there, and put 4 people in the south end and 4 people in the north end.

And instead of going from the center out, we go from the ends in, and You can reach the south end of town much more efficiently, much quicker from the south end fire station than you can from the headquarters station.

What this does is that if this building was there now— this is with the 10 people that are there.

I certainly support the chief and what he's looking for with the extra help.

That's where we should be.

But this now could be opened if we had— with the 10 people that we have.

So, uh, and then if we couldn't make it to 10, then if we had it at 8, then you'd put 4 and 4, and with the hopes of adding personnel.

Now bearing in mind that this station is going to take— it's a 2-year project.

So hopefully by the 2 years, if you have the staff, then you can certainly add to it.

But this is a common sense proposal.

If we don't add any people— and I have to say it's going to be a tough climb to get some of those, the numbers that we've seen for additional— I mean, we know the limitations and everything— this would allow a far better overall operation of the fire department too, because now with the South End being the busiest district and a lot of resources always coming out of Banner to come down here, it would keep the resources in the north longer and we'd be better able to service the south.

And one of the numbers that was given in your presentation in 2020 was you looked at mutual aid And you thought that we were probably losing 100 runs a year.

That's in 2020.

It's probably even more than that.

And with the huge increase in the, uh, fees for the ambulance, which I guess an ambulance run now can go between $4,000 and $5,000, we're losing— if we're losing 100, $400,000 to $500,000.

So there could be a part of the budget gap that you're looking for.

And by putting 2 people at headquarters, I was looking at potentially you could put either a 3rd rescue in service or you could cross-man a ladder truck.

So it gives you somewhere, and, and plus it'd be there for the police, they could use it 24/7.

It gives you so many more options and it greatly improves the efficiency of the fire department town-wide.

So the last thing I have here is a chart that you, you created on the cost of the bonds.

So the simple math is that, all right, so if you— this is on a 20-year bond.

If your house is, um, is valued at $450,000 it would cost $72 a year in extra taxes.

And the simplest math is you take the dollar amount per thousand of your valuation and multiply it by 16 cents, and that would give you the total.

Oh, the, uh, budget was for $9.5 million.

And I know there's— there was some discussion that that wasn't a proper amount of money.

Well, talking with Mr. Tosino, the chairman, who's also in the construction business, he, uh, thinks that it was well within range.

And I also contacted the, uh, the architect, Mr. Galante, and because we can use the old energy code, which will be a further substantial savings, he agrees that the 8,300-square-foot building should be able to be built for $9.5 million.

Then I went back and I asked them to, uh, just clarify, are you designing it— are you saying that with the old code or the new code?

And he said, we are designing to the current code requirements, which is the new energy code, and that rough cost of between $900 and $1,000 a square foot, that's what the pricing is coming in at.

So at 8— on the low side, at 8,300 square feet at $900 a square foot, that's $7,470,000.

Give us a contingency of $2,030,000.

If it's on the high side of $1,000 a square foot That would be $83— $8.3 million, and it'll give us contingency of $1,200,000.

The Permit Extension Act expires this year, and this is the year that we can take advantage of the savings, because after this, if it has to be redesigned and go to new codes, it'll be millions more dollars.

The South End, as we know, sees 2/3 of the activity of the, of the fire department.

The time now is to build it It's gonna be much more efficient, and then as the other plan kicks in, we could only improve it with staffing.

But the facility now needs to be built.

What's the square footage again?

8,300.

I'll answer any questions.

Anybody have any questions?

Oh, I thought you said something.

Okay, seeing no questions, um, uh, vote has to be taken regarding a ballot question.

Yep.

And then If the ballot question is approved, it's going to sound like this, and it's a binding question: Shall the Town of Seekonk be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition 2.5, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to fund the design, engineering, site preparation, construction, and initial furnishings and equipping, equipping of a proposed South End fire station to be located at 69 School Street, Seekonk, Mass., including all costs incidental or related thereto.

That would be the question at the end of your ballot April 6th if it is voted to be put on.

Enact— well, that's not really, because the next question said— says the next thing is to determine whether South End Fire Station ballot question be placed on annual election ballot or special election ballot.

Where did that come from?

What's that?

It's special.

No, I just put that in just in case.

I just want to cover our bases.

I know we were talking about the annual But just in case somebody decided that they didn't want an annual, we had it there for a special.

If you chose not to put it on for April, if you want to do a special, I didn't want to have to come back.

What would be the advantage of doing a special?

There's no advantage.

It's just it costs more money.

Oh, absolutely.

You can do it.

It can be done.

It can be done.

It's like a special town meeting.

It can be done, doesn't mean that we want to do it.

Yes, it's going to cost more money, especially you can do the same thing for ballots.

Yeah, my recommendation is not a special.

I, I would say do it with the annual because we've got all the work that's being taken place.

We don't have to set up another election or anything like that.

So, but we, we do have the option if we want to do a special site, right?

I put that on there.

I get that.

And then I would, I would just throw this out there, uh, This is a great presentation that the chief put through, put together.

I would think that the financial reality of it is going to make it prohibitive, or it's going to be a much longer venue, much longer timeline to get there.

So in the interim, it only makes sense to build the South Station to better provide services to the South End and the rest of the town.

And I also like to let everybody know that if this question goes on a ballot, that is not the end.

It has to go to the next town meeting to be voted on town meeting floor because it has to be approved on town meeting floor.

Twice it's been on town meeting floor and it failed, so it didn't go to ballot.

This time, if it— if the board approves it will go to a ballot, but it still has to go back to town meeting floor to be approved.

And yes, it can be done that way.

And yes, we've done it before.

So just to clarify that for folks at home, so there are 2 separate votes.

So the ballot question is the authorization for the debt exclusion.

So that's going above the 2.5% on your taxes that would pace specifically for that project.

Yep.

The vote at town meeting is just the borrowing authorization, the appropriation and the borrowing.

Yes, appropriation of the dollar amount to borrow.

Correct.

Yes.

And authorizing, authorizing the borrowing.

Are you ready for a motion, Madam Chair, if nobody has anything else they want to say?

I'll, I'll say that I'm, I'm not in favor of putting the fire station on the ballot question on, on, on the April election.

I mean, I, I think it's, it's my fear, as it has been, and based on all the numbers we just saw from the chief's presentation, that we're going to build a building that's going to sit.

And if we end up putting people in it, it's going to be dispersing the, um, the firefighters that we have and It's— I don't think it'll do any good to what the chief is trying to get to, which is having, you know, a safe staffing level.

And I also personally am not comfortable— and I know it can be done that way— going to town to say we're going to do a debt exclusion and not knowing what that dollar amount is.

Just my, my opinion.

Okay, make a motion.

I move we, uh, put the Sultan Fire Station on the annual election ballot.

Did I say that right?

Do I just read this?

It's the one that's bold.

Oh, okay.

So you want me to read the question?

Just make a motion to put the ballot question.

Okay, as follows.

Uh, yes, binding question as follows: Shall the Town of Seekonk be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition 2½, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issue in order to fund the design, engineering, site preparation, construction, initial furnishing, and equipping of a proposed cell fire station to be located at 69 School Street, Seekonk, Mass., including all costs incidental or related thereto.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I got that.

Okay, so we got a motion.

Do I get a second?

We have a motion on the binding the ballot question.

I need a second on that motion.

Not hearing a second unless somebody wants to second it.

Okay, I've asked 3 times, I've got no response.

The motion fails.

So the next is to determine whether South End Fire Station ballot question be placed on the annual— okay, we don't even need that, so we can just skip right over that.

D, we have town clerk to conduct, conduct a lottery drawing for ballot positions for April election.

Hello again.

Hi.

So as everybody knows, we are holding the town election on April 6th 2026.

It will be held at the Seekonk High School in the gymnasium from 7:00 AM until 8:00 PM.

We are going to vote on Board of Assessors, Board of Library Trustees, Planning Board, School Committee, Select Board, Town Clerk, Town Moderator, and Water Commissioner.

We only have 2 contested races.

Board of Library Trustees, it's really not contested.

There's 2 seats for 3-year term and 2 people are running.

Per the town charter, we still have to do a lottery drawing.

Give me a name, please.

So Fred Slellman will be number 1 on the ballot.

Catherine Capello will be second.

Next contested race is the Select board.

We have three people running for two seats.

First person on the ballot, Robert Ottenwald.

Second.

Elizabeth Elmajian, and third will be Michelle Hines.

Any questions?

No, we just want to let people know about, um, early voting.

Early voting will need, uh, Board of Registrars still has to approve it, or, and then once they approve it, it has to go to the select board.

I know you all want early voting, however You have to vote on this every year.

Um, yes, every year, every, um, time you have to if you're going to have early voting.

There is a change now since we are open Monday through Thursday.

Um, I would suggest it would be just during town hall hours, especially for a town election.

This is costly, as we all know.

We are— we have constraints with the budget.

We really need to consider everything we do and where we choose to put our budget.

So my suggestion would be, if you want to hold it, we only do it for the 4 days.

If we hold it on a Friday or a Saturday, it is not automatic— automatically going to be reimbursed from the state.

So you have to take a vote.

If you vote to choose for the early election and you choose to do it on a Friday or Saturday, There's a possibility that the state will reimburse us, but the vote has to be recorded.

So once we have the Board of Registrars meeting, next meeting I will present it to you and you will take your vote at that time.

Okay.

Because I remember we did pass— we did vote to have the early voting at every election.

That way everybody knows that it's not just that one day that the week before we'll have, uh, voting here at the town hall.

Vote will have to be taken every time from the state.

All right, any other questions?

I will say, before we even hold for the Board of Registrars meeting, are we interested in moving forward with the early voting?

Oh, you want a consensus of the board before we even do this?

Are we interested in going forward?

And it still has to be taken by vote, and will you do it Monday through Thursday.

So you want us to do it now?

You don't have to do it now.

It has to do it later.

Yeah, but before I can— yep, you want me to present to the Board of Registrars early voting Monday through Thursday?

Pam?

Yeah, it's fine.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so the next meeting, that's what I'll present to the Board of Registrars and come forward with you so you can take a vote.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And that gives you enough time, right?

Yes, for all this, I'm moving forward with it.

Yeah, okay, with the assumption we're going to do it.

But all right, because I know there's time restraints on everything, so I don't want to— nope.

As of— because we have now who's going to be on the ballot and what numbering it will be, as of tomorrow we— I will start having them.

Excellent, excellent.

Thank you very much.

Okay, consider signing the town election warrant, and that's this, right?

Yes.

Okay, just so everybody knows, the town election warrant says, greetings, in the name of the Commonwealth, you are required to notify and warn inhabitants of the town who are qualified to vote in the election to vote at Precinct 1, 2, 3, and 4, vote at Seekonk High School, 261 Arcade Avenue, Seekonk, Mass., on Monday, April 6th, 2026, from 7 AM to 8 PM for the following purpose.

To cast their votes in the annual town election for the election of candidates for the following offices: Board of Assessor, 3-year term; Board of Library Trustee, 3-year term; Board of Library Trustee, 3-year term; Planning Board, 5-year term; School Committee, 3-year term; Select Board, 3-year term; Select Board, 3-year term; Town Clerk, 3-year term; Town Moderator, 3-year term; Water Commission, 3-year term.

Given under our hands this 18th— what's 18th?

What's the date today?

Yeah, February— yeah, 18th day of February, 2026.

So that is to consider.

Let's make a motion.

So moved.

To do it.

Second.

Any other questions?

That is a motion to sign the town election warrant, right, Gary?

Yes.

Okay, seeing no questions, all in favor?

All right, any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Thank you.

And now we have a Habitat for Humanity discussion of town properties.

Yeah, it's kind of right here.

Madam Chair, Mayor, select board, I'm Kim Thomas, the CEO of Old Colony Habitat for Humanity.

We have Stephen Manny, who is our, um, build lead, and then Charlie.

I'm Charles Beacham, live at 127 Allen Avenue, Seekog.

Can you just give me your name again, please?

Kim Thomas and Stephen Manni, M-A-N-N-I.

Okay, so I'm just going to do a quick overview of what the work that we've been doing since we last saw you all back in 2022, um, and the properties that that Charlie had discussed with Burnside, as well as the Old Fire Station, more so with Burnside.

We had reached out to you all and there was an approval to kind of go forward with looking at that property.

We talked with the building department and there were the small variances that we'd need to obtain.

So we're just going to talk a little bit about what we've been doing related.

Is that better?

Yeah, get it closer.

Can you turn— maybe using that one instead?

Reach?

Yeah, that's reaching.

How's that?

Sorry, is that better?

Yeah, that was better.

Okay, thank you, thank you.

So we, um, had worked, um, with a lot of, um, cities and towns and working with variances and really proud of the work that we've done over the last 5 years.

And we do have the, um, home in Seekonk on Goode Street as well that, um, is going really well and we had obtained that many, many years ago.

So these are the cities and towns that we are serving, and I'm going to go through it a little quickly because I know you all have had it, just to kind of show you what we've done.

Also, we have our new administrative offices in Rainham now through Bristol County Savings Bank.

So we've come a long way in 5 years.

I'm very excited.

We've been around since '89, and we've done 12 builds, and now we do 1 build a year.

This is our 4th build since under my leadership and Stephen and Charlie's support.

We typically will build 3 homes— excuse me, 3 bedrooms with 1.5 baths, usually 1,500 square feet, or have HER's rating and so forth.

We raise about $300,000 per home, and we work with the community and volunteers to build these homes.

And of course, we work with the neighbors in the community.

It's been a really wonderful journey in working with each city and town.

And even my first year when I came here, we were looking at Seekonk.

My sister lived here for a 20 years before moving out of town.

But I love, love to work with Seaconch, um, in the future.

These are the views of the home, how we usually do the 2-story, and we can fit on small lots as well.

Stephen, do you want to talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, so we've been putting this model here.

It's 1,440 square feet.

We're able to fit it comfortably on a 5,000 square foot lot.

We've done a couple of them and it's worked out well.

We have had to go for variances to the town because we, you know, the lots are typically undersized and sometimes we get too close to one of the boundaries.

But we've had no problem getting through the ZBA process in the other towns that we've worked with.

Okay, because the zero Burnside is a 10,000 square foot lot.

Yeah, that's— and our minimum is 22,500.

That's why that would— thank you for answering that because that was one of my questions.

So that's twice the size of lot that we used on a couple of houses.

Yeah.

Ideally, we look for lots of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet, and that's how we can build these homes.

And even a— we are building in Franklin now, which I'll talk about as we go through here, and also in Norton.

We obtain the land through RFPs through cities and towns of either blighted properties or land, or we get them from private donors.

So there is a 92-year-old woman who donated a small lot in Norton that we just obtained a few months ago.

So that's, you know, it's between cities and towns and private, and we're able to do one a year, which has been fabulous in helping families in affordable homes.

And then as far as working through the, you know, the SHI subsidized housing inventory and having the 10%, we would work with the town of Seekonk to make sure that that would happen with the Burnside property.

And this is what we've done in Taunton.

We had tore down an old blighted structure and built a home.

We usually— it takes about 9 months for us to do this.

Believe it or not, we pretty much can turn it around pretty quickly, which is exciting.

We have a system now and really working closely and start in usually July and then have the families in the following June so they're able to get the kids ready for school.

This is the first build we did in Attleboro with a private donor.

It was the bottom one in blue, and the top is another home that we obtained in Norton through RFP.

You'll see the old building and then the new one.

And this is our new project.

We took over a historical church in Franklin through RFP, and it's been quite a ride— historical preservation and about 2,100 square feet.

And I'll— Stephen, you'll talk a little bit about that.

Yeah, so this is the first big reno that we've taken on, and it was a pretty substantial project, and it had a big historical component because we agreed with the town anything we wanted to do to the outside had to get approved by the Historic Commission.

And so at this point, we've got the— the outside is done, and we're now about halfway done with the inside.

And when it's done, it's going to be what?

A single-family home.

So it's 4 beds, 2 full baths.

Oh, cool.

So it's 2,100 square feet, which is very big for a Habitat house, but it's— that was the footprint we were given, so we're working with it.

So that's the column restructuring here and the decking.

So just a few things, just for you to see kind of the work that we've been doing over the last few years.

So that's, um, about the projects that we've done.

And then Like I said, we've— I know I've sent samples of the RFP recently to the mayor, and we were interested in seeing if the, if the town would be, you know, interested in partnering with us down the road, whether Burnside is the property or through RFP of other types of properties.

Now that you see what we've done with restructuring and also rehabs and building ground up, I don't know if that If anybody has any questions for us.

Actually, I have a question for Sean.

I wasn't involved per se in the last house we had for Habitat for Humanity, but I know what's happened since then and the benefit to the family that eventually went in there.

But what I want to ask is, we put properties up for sale.

On a regular basis, town-owned properties once in a while.

The 10,000— they're discussing the 10,000-square-foot property on Burnside.

Have we ever put that up?

We haven't yet.

Well, we have not.

And the, um, the County Street location, we have permission to, but we have not done that yet, right?

Because things need to be done.

And so If, if we decided to work with Habitat for Humanity, say, on Burnside, do we have to put that up?

How, how does the land go?

Do we have— what do we have to do?

I'm just thinking, what if the neighbors want to buy that property?

So you would just— you would still have to put an RFP, but you would— you could tailor it to, um, similar to the RFP that they submitted to us.

So it's all how you draft the RFP.

So if you just want it open for, um, yeah, open space or development or even residential, you could just open up to everybody.

But, you know, just similar to what we did with the, um, the Old Town Hall, we had an educational component, we also had a historical component, and then a tribal component to it.

So it limited who could actually bid for it because you had to meet those requirements.

So you just draft the RFP the same way.

If you, if you designate it as affordable housing, then, then you can designate it as affordable housing.

And also we do the deed in perpetuity as well for the affordable housing piece of it.

But also this way, in samples of RFPs that state, you know, the different types of developers or people that would be interested in that, and affordable housing is one of those.

Things to have on that, and experience in working with affordable housing and things like that.

And now I have a tax question for you.

Say we put these houses on these lots, just perhaps.

What about the tax— property taxes for this?

Do those houses pay property tax, whoever's in them?

Yes.

So when we wouldn't be losing any taxes for the town No, if these houses go, it would go back on the tax roll.

Okay, I needed to know that.

Okay, you got a question?

Yes.

Burnside, you and I had a conversation about this.

That went up for tax title and it was auctioned.

It was a bid received, and— but I think that one was pulled, pulled back though, I think.

No, then you told me that the DPW wanted that for access to the brook.

Yeah, I'd have to go back on Burnside, double-check that one.

Yeah, but County Street is— we're good.

We've got the authorization for town meeting.

So yeah, my tax question was the only thing I had for County Street because that to me is a good place.

And typically— but the Burnside to me was a little questionable, not only for the size, but you answered that question.

But if the neighbors wanted to buy it, because it's surrounded by other people's properties, but now we have a question on that property about DPW access to the brook.

So I do remember it in the major plan, they wanted to keep it for— so that might not be available.

But I don't have any problem.

Yeah, we're looking for long-term partnership too.

So whichever, you know, and also in the We work with the cities and towns and the taxes paid around what the sale of the home is versus what the actual value evaluation is.

Yeah.

So basically, if we put a Habitat— we put a Habitat house there, they pay less taxes than if we sold it to a house builder.

Yes, affordable housing.

So yeah, that's the way they usually— yep, absolutely.

Okay.

Well, we have something I wanted you to know.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Because it does make a difference because we're facing some financial issues.

You've been here all night.

So, you know, so I'm not going to arbitrarily— nothing against Habitat— give away property that could bring in tax money.

Now I understand that.

Yeah.

Some big pieces of town property now that those taxes are no longer coming into the town because it's It's owned by the town.

So, I mean, we have to look at that because if we have a budget that we need to put money into without trying to raise anybody's taxes terribly, you know, we have to look at the property that we own because if we sold some of that property to somebody, taxes would be coming back into the town.

So I mean, that's a— that's why I needed to know that.

Yeah, so the state law says you have to go through an RFP process.

Okay.

And if you wanted to designate it for affordable housing, then Habitat could compete.

But if you just put it out as an RFP without affordable housing, then Habitat could not compete, right?

We've been there, done that, and we, we can't compete against a commercial building.

I understand, I understand that now.

Yes.

Um, do you only do single families right now?

We do, yeah.

Right, because that fire station potentially may be able to get a special permit as a duplex, which would add to the value of That's something we have conversations about.

So it's my constantly, you know, for more families, right, to help them, where it's myself and I have like 3 very part-time people and rely on, you know, thousands of volunteers.

And we worry a little bit about doing it that because we're so small.

Challenges that set up a condo association and managing that.

It's just a whole lot of extra bureaucracy.

And I would have discussion with board though and talk about that.

Do you, like on a property as Mr. Sagat was saying, that's a larger property.

I don't know what the square footage is, but I know it's not 10,000 square feet.

You go, the house you put on it depends on the property that you have, like maybe a house with 4 bedrooms instead of one with 2 bedrooms.

Is that how you determine what you put on the property?

We usually do the small ones with the 3-bedroom.

The reason why the larger one is 4 is because she has 3 children and we thought we could add that, make the dining room.

And we've not had a project like this before, right, where it's so large.

But typically it's 3-bedroom, 1.5-bath is what we do.

Do you already know the families that are going to move into the houses before you build them?

That's a great question.

No, we go through a whole lottery process and open up application.

Last time, each application cycle is over 100 people apply, down to like 30 people, and down to sometimes 4 or 5, and then we do lottery.

So it takes several months, and that's after the house is already built?

No, during, because they have to put 250 sweat equity hours into the home to build it with us.

Mhm.

And don't we have something that we can say that our residents get first?

That could be part of the RFP, first whatever you call it.

Yeah, they could— first refusal.

Oh, Or they could apply and then it's accepted.

Yes, yes, it could be in the, it could be in the RFP that it would be for.

Usually we, we don't do that.

The towns will ask, but we'll do whatever we need to do to help out, you know, and to get another family.

So can change those, but that could be put in that request.

Actually, that's something I think we did last time.

That's why I was asking, because, you know, things change all the time.

So yeah, okay.

So, okay.

Anybody else have any questions here?

So now, what's the next step, Sean, for this?

The board— if you want to put out an RFP, right, on either one of the lots or both the lots, I suggest both of them.

That would be my guess for affordable housing.

Both of them?

Both of them, Burnside and Commerce Street.

Is that a motion?

That's my motion.

That's your motion?

Do I get a second on that motion?

I will ask again.

Do I get a second on the motion to designate both properties, Burnside and County Street, put out RFP for.

Okay, one more time.

I ask for a second.

Do I hear a second on the motion?

Okay, not hearing a second on the motion, the motion fails.

So Am I going to get another one?

I'd just like to add a little bit.

Uh, I know there was a bid on the Burnside lot that should be at least investigated and respected, right?

Right.

Uh, number 2, if they only do single family and they're looking at the fire station, then you'd be tearing it down.

We'd probably have to talk about that, but it depends on what size the lot is and then what the board— but I think it would be a teardown.

I would.

Yeah.

And I think from the town's perspective, putting it out as an RFP as a potential duplex would only add to the value of the property.

So that's why I would initially be against it.

I don't know how big the lot is.

I don't know, about 17,000 square feet, I think it is.

I'm not sure what it is.

It's about that.

Yeah.

Well, so that— with that being said, The board needs to get a little bit more information on both of the lots.

That, that's just going to put you on hold for a bit so we can get more information on both of the lots.

I got the size of Burnside because I thought that was small for a house, but you've explained that.

And County Street, I'm sure, is sized for a house, but I don't know about the duplex question that's come up, so I would like to get more.

I, I'd like to get more information so we can be fair to not only the town but you too.

You also— I do have a question.

Does the old fire station have asbestos?

I know that there's an old oil tank that would be a hazardous waste disposal issue, but it— does the old fire station have asbestos or anything?

It is anybody looked into whether it has any hazardous materials in it?

There was a— the boiler was replaced probably in the early 2000s, late '90s, so it's a newer boiler, not that old.

I mean, it's not brand new, but heat's off in the building.

Heat's been off in the building.

The bigger question would be there's 2 floor drains in the building.

One of them goes out to a catch basin in the driveway, and one's just an actual, like, drain in the floor that over, over time— I can't tell you what went in it.

Um, so they'd have to be, uh, contaminated.

Yeah, that would have to be looked at and evaluated and stuff.

County Street.

I can't tell you everything that went in those.

But Chief, do you know if there's asbestos in that building?

I thought somebody did an evaluation of that building.

Wouldn't that say it?

Like I said, It's just based on the building age.

Yeah, we need to get more information on that, on the building, because we can't answer that for you.

It does— well, we'd have to remediate anything before we got rid of it, right?

Yeah, that would be on us.

Yeah, I mean, the other option to think about if you wanted 2 families on that lot is to tear down and then give us a variance to put 2 small houses on that 17,000 square foot lot.

Cost us more money to tear it down than than you would.

Yeah, that's the problem.

TADMs are expensive, especially just prevailing wage.

And yeah, we had worked with one town that put it through, and the other one we picked— we did it.

As far as a small lot exemption too with Burnside, I think habitats are usually the only people— only people that can build on those lots.

Can there be small lot exemptions just for— I'm not sure, but that's what I think.

That's why we do get those.

Right?

Usually— no, no, I understand that, and that's not a bad idea, but just— I didn't realize there was a question on the property.

So we need to get more information on both properties because we're not— I don't want to put out an RFP and then we all get in the weeds because this should have been done first or whatever.

We need to know exactly.

I, I don't think the other project was as complicated because I think there there was a house there to begin with.

So, but, um, with the court— with the things that have come up tonight, which I'm glad they have, we need to get more information before we can allow an RFP to go out.

Okay.

Weren't you looking at some land on the other side of 44 opposite Good Street a few years ago?

My first year— not Morris, that was like Morris, and that was my first year.

I can't remember.

Yeah, Morris.

I don't know if there was any other one.

Do you remember?

No, I, I'm not aware of any other.

Not other than that one.

Yeah, Habitat was interested in.

So we're gonna, um, our town administrator will get somebody to research the questions that we already have.

Um, well, maybe this paper says the square footage.

Hold on.

Nope, does not.

Um, and then we have your contact information, I hope, don't we?

So we can contact you as soon as we get that and have you come back, right?

So we— okay.

Oh yeah, that's right.

Okay, so we get enough information.

All right, perfect.

Sounds great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

That's good information.

Okay, we now have Okay, consider the acceptance of the drainage access easement deed for Palmer River Road, Roseanne Court, and Burson Road.

The other 2 have been taken off the list because of legal paperwork that isn't done yet.

So these are roads that have been— all the paperwork's been done, and this is the next acceptance we have to do, right?

Acceptance of the drainage.

These are all the ones that were accepted at the— tell me.

Yes, tell me.

I have them all here, but only those 3: Palmer River, Roseanne Court, and Burson Road.

Motion?

Motion to accept?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, got a motion and a second.

Anybody have any questions?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Consider the acceptance of the street acceptance deed for Palmer River Road, Roseanne Court, and Burson Road.

So moved.

Second.

I got a motion and a second.

Any questions?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, unanimous.

Thank you.

Consider accepting the open session minutes from January 21st, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Does anybody have any, um, no questions or anything?

No.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing it non-unanimous, thank you.

Community speaks again.

Anyone?

Sure, come down.

Just name and your street, please.

Elizabeth Elmation.

Oh, hi, how are you?

Good, how are you?

Good, thank you.

I've never met you, so No, go ahead.

I'm around.

I didn't know.

Go ahead.

681 Washington Street.

I've got a couple of things.

A few may not make some of you happy, but I, I need to say a few things.

First, by not voting to allow the residents— well, let me back up— to vote to not put it on the ballot, a new another fire station.

Does that— do you realize what kind of liability you're subjecting the town to?

Say what you have to say.

Okay.

God forbid if there's an accident, a loss of life, a fire, whatever have you.

Growing up— and I moved here, I was born in 1963— 3.

We always had 3 fire stations.

I realized that times have changed and expenses are through the roof right now, but we always had 3 stations.

We had 2 drive-ins.

We had a fraction of the commercial properties and businesses that we do now.

The response time to get down Route 6 and Fall River Ave is ridiculous.

So if something should happen, where do you think a person's going to look first for liability?

Who do you think they're going to blame?

They're going to come back to the meeting minutes and they're going to say, well, the people didn't vote on it, the board voted on it.

So you're subjecting this town to liability that I, I can't even explain to you.

Now granted, I'm not a firefighter.

You were a chief, and how you can say to the chief that you don't understand how he does what he does is beyond me, because you did do it, so you have a better understanding, I think, than anybody.

I'm an attorney.

I understand the whole concept of liability more than I probably would like to.

But by taking the vote away from the residents, where do you think liability is going to fall.

Do you think of that, or are you just thinking of the cost of it and we can't afford it?

Because during his presentation, which was excellent, there's going to be a loss of life somewhere.

You've got Whole Foods opening, you've got Market Basket opening, you've got Pride Hyundai opening.

That is going to bottleneck Route 6 and Fall River Ave even more.

How is a truck supposed to get through there when I can't even get through there in a vehicle or in a car?

Why wouldn't you allow the residents to vote on it?

It relieves the board of liability if you allow the residents to vote on it.

I'm not making a comment, I'm asking a question.

Of course this board thinks of liability, and it doesn't relieve us of liability because people are going to sue anyway.

They will, whether they do or not.

Our fire department responds to calls now where the life is in danger of the, the patient.

And they have gotten there.

They've serviced them.

They get through traffic.

Will you wait?

No, I'm not going to wait because I'm tired of you barking at people.

I'm not going to answer you then.

Well, then don't answer me.

I'll keep talking because quite honestly, I'm tired of you barking at people all the time.

You cut him off tonight and I wanted to hear what he had to say.

Now, you're not interested in what other towns do, okay?

But I am.

Because if we can't compare ourselves to other towns, how do we get better at things?

We can't just stay in our own little bubble.

Okay, so whether it's an overtime budget, budget, whatever it is, this is going to bring me to my next question.

A year ago at a meeting— I can give you the date if you like— you weren't on the board.

Mr. Sullivan was on the board.

There was a presentation about the Public Works building, and there was a presentation about a 3rd fire station.

And Mr. Sullivan very disrespectfully kept speaking down to people— needs versus wants.

Well, I think it's time we go back to that and talk about needs versus wants, because for the past year, one of the priorities that I keep hearing out of this board is this, this Madeiras Farm project.

So please explain to me the needs versus wants when we have firefighters who are being put in harm's way, citizens being put in harm's way, but we're pushing soccer fields.

That I would like an answer to.

And as long as I'm not getting yelled at, I won't yell either.

I won't raise my voice.

But you yell at people, and it's not right.

So if we can have a normal conversation, I'm up for it.

That's up to you.

You lead the tone of these meetings.

So why are we spending money on a recreational project when we have the need for a safety project?

That's what I want to know.

And, and, and this is the part you're not going to like.

The self-righteous attitude about how you put Seekonk first and how you do everything right when that couldn't be farthest from the truth.

Mr. Sullivan sitting on that committee, he has no business sitting on that committee.

He is not a board member.

And Miss Posey, I commend you for pointing that out, and I commend you for offering to sit on that committee.

And 3 of you went from, yes, that was the intent to put the committee together, to I don't want him going anywhere.

So how do you reconcile that?

From one side of your mouth, everything's about the time in your town and you're doing things right, and the next you're putting someone that, you know, you can all pretend— he's not even living in Massachusetts right now.

29 Emily Way is uninhabitable.

So why don't you tell me where Mr. Sullivan lives right now?

The problem is no one calls anybody out on anything on this board, and I have no problem doing it because I'm tired of it, which is why I'm running.

Now, Mr. Gadeem, I'd like a straight, honest answer out of you, if you don't mind, because this topic came up and it wasn't the question It was more the reaction that got my curiosity up.

It was at the January 6th Medeiros Farm Committee meeting, and Ms. Taylor right behind me got up and asked something about the committee members, and you and Mr. Sullivan bullied her and belittled her because you didn't want to answer what she had to say.

With the exception of Justin Sullivan, who was appointed to this board in May of 2024, by whom and when were the other committee members appointed on the Madeiras Farm Committee?

No.

Oh, you don't have to answer it?

No, this is Community Speaks.

You talk to us.

Oh, so you don't have to answer any questions?

You're insulated from being called out on what you've done?

Well, first of all, I didn't bully anybody.

You did.

I can show— I can show— I can show you.

You yell.

You pretty much raised your voice and told her she keeps asking because you don't— she doesn't like the answer that you're giving her.

Personally, I think the disrespect is ridiculous, which is true.

Okay.

But I'm asking— but I'm asking now, and a number of people want to know, that committee has been allotted and allowed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a recreational project.

Then we have a fire chief who comes in here to clearly identify the need, and now it comes down to where is the money going to come from while we're pushing a recreational project.

And that's all that this board has been really focusing on for the last year.

So to answer that question, town meeting voted for the Medeiros Farm.

I understand that.

I appropriated the money for Medeiros Farm.

That's why that's moving forward.

Okay.

Town meeting did not vote for the South End fire station.

That's why we're not moving forward with South End Fire Station tonight.

You could have put it on the ballot.

Not me, but they could have.

The board members could have and still would have required town meeting.

So that's why— no, I understand that.

That's why that's not taking place.

In terms of the appointments to the, uh, from the other members, that was outlined in the, the warrant article and Corporation Council.

The bylaws say committee members have to be appointed by the board.

They were never appointed by the board.

Those— that's right in the bylaws.

I, I understand.

And so Miss Taylor was right there with legal, town council.

She asked town council, town council gave her the same exact answers.

They are legitimate members of the, of the committee because it was outlined by— I don't want to hear outlined.

The bylaws say one thing.

You're circumventing what the bylaws say.

No, don't laugh.

And this is what you do.

I don't know, because you, because you keep coming back.

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

So town council has has agreed and stated that the members of the Medeiros Farm are legitimate and actual members of, of the committee.

And I can say Santa Claus is real too, but okay, the bottom line is, the bottom line is, if the bylaws say committee members have to be appointed, okay, by this board, and you appointed Mr. Sullivan erroneously and wrongfully but you did, because he's not a member of this board anymore.

But you guys kind of pulled a bait and switch on that one.

So when did this board appoint the, the Madeiras Farm committee members?

You can say 10 people recognize them, but the bylaws say they have to be appointed by this board.

So when did, when did that take place and by whom?

It was outlined by the warrant article, right, with the members being appointed by those committees.

Not one member had an individual— not one member had an issue with any of those members that were appointed by those committees.

So by right, according to town council— and then, and see, and then you wonder why then Doreen Taylor's in the back saying she doesn't like it.

She doesn't like the answer.

That was the response to town meeting.

But where is it that somebody put a motion out and seconded and approved it like you did with Mr. Sullivan last 20 Town Council said it was not required.

Who's Town Council?

KP Law.

Please, I think that needs to be looked at too.

Okay, I think you have a little yes person there.

I'd be a yes person too for that kind of money every year if I had that kind of client.

You've got a double standard going on here, you really do.

You expect everybody to do everything by the rules in front of you, but you're doing things differently and think that the public is okay with it.

They're not okay with it.

They're not.

Especially putting Mr. Sullivan back on that committee.

That's wrong.

He's not a board member.

You pointed that out.

And you— and quote, your exact words were, you wonder why people don't trust us.

And that's why.

Because it went from Mr. Healy, Mr. Zorra, and yourself saying a year earlier how the warrant article said that the intent was to have a board member on.

A year later, when his term was up, your exact words were, I don't want him going anywhere.

It's not a matter of want.

And here we are.

So we all have to do things by the rules, but except when you want to do something, you make up your own rules.

Rules.

It's wrong and it needs to change.

So just to wrap things up, KP Law, whatever advice or opinion they give you does not coincide with your bylaws.

So you can do what you want with that, but if you want to go by precedent, those committee members were never appointed.

And I personally resent the amount of money that they're spending without having the proper appointment.

And a lot of people feel that way.

Bring them in, appoint them.

I think everybody would feel a lot better.

But to put somebody on that's not a board member, you're wrong.

Because if I did that, then I'd be called out on it.

Any questions?

I know you're dying to see me get up and go back to my seat.

I will.

No?

Okay.

A lot of people unhappy, myself included.

Thank you.

Is that your phone?

Your phone?

Your phone, Elizabeth.

Doreen.

Um, Doreen Taylor, 101 Foresight.

Thank you, Liz.

I'm glad somebody heard me.

Um, um, I have a question about, um, financing fire apparatus.

Do we not lease them when we buy them?

When we purchase, say we buy a new engine, isn't it like on a 2 or 3 year lease program, or is that a choice that's made by the fire chief and yourself, Sean?

So, so typically we, we do the lease purchase, so it's, it's not a lease like you would think, but every year it's a financing.

So that's what it was, but the apparatus, the engine and and the, um, the rescue— the engine and the rescue were actually purchased using ARPA money, so there was no lease.

Okay.

All right, though.

All right.

I'm just saying typically, because I remember at town meeting having to approve lease payments for certain capital items.

So if we have to buy a new truck, um, say for whatever the cost was, $1.2 million, it can be structured as lease payments on an annual basis.

Is that correct?

And they typically are.

Okay, that I wanted to understand.

Um, I also wanted to, you know, you, you mentioned, Sean, that, uh, when the fire chief asks for personnel, um, there's never a balk, there's always a walk, and he manages to, to get what he wants.

Have there been budget cycles where the fire chief in his draft budget has said, I'd like to put on 2 fire— 2 firemen, and for whatever the reason may be, competitive interests, and I know what that is, um, you have to pull them out?

Has that ever happened?

Yes.

So I, I— if you took that I said that we— they've never gotten put in requests and never gotten— I mean, no, no, no, I'm not saying never gotten.

I'm just saying when he does a draft, say he says this year I'd like to put on 2 new firefighters, um, in lieu of having to juggle the numbers because of competing interests and asking for the world on Water Lane.

Um, do you have to tell him no, you can't get them this year?

Or have you had to tell him no?

Last 3 years, yeah.

The last 3 years he's asked for like 1 or 2 at a time, something like that.

So conceivably thinking if we had fought harder at town meeting, he would be halfway home with with the 8 additional firefighters that he needs in order to have a South End fire station.

I don't think we fight enough at town meeting.

I'm sorry, I, I just don't think— I think the Board of Selectmen, Select Board, whatever you guys are called right now, you are the executive board of the town.

That I know.

Need to fight, and you need to be firm with what is required.

A lot of times— and I'm at every town meeting, the spring and the fall and the specials, as I can get there— I know exactly what happens because it's a repeat every year.

But people need to hear from you as our leaders The South End of Seekonk needs that South End fire station.

Putting that on the ballot— I know, and you've told me before, that you don't put a dollar amount on that.

The dollar amount comes out at town meeting.

So the ballot question as written is perfectly fine.

Without a dollar amount.

So Pam, I'm a little disappointed in how you addressed that earlier.

Second of all, if it's a binding question, it just means that station will be built in our future.

It doesn't mean that we have to put a shovel in the ground tomorrow or we need to prep a warrant article for fall town meeting to fund it and get ahead.

Mr. Sagar said it's going to take 2 years to build that.

A binding question keeps it in place for a future discussion at town meeting for funding, does it not?

And taking a vote away from me is not a good thing to do.

You're at a disadvantage telling the rest of the town we don't want your input here.

You should reconsider that vote, put it on the ballot, and let the entire town decide.

There's no money tied to that.

Am I right?

There's no money tied to that as is.

It's a commitment to do it at a future date.

What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that?

I live in the South End.

And I'll tell you, I am on 114A a lot more now than I was before because I I used to always do the back roads.

But I've seen fire trucks and ambulances coming down 114A heading south.

You try going through there between the hours of 2:30 and 5 o'clock, and it is horrible.

And I know the majority of it is because people are doing cut-throughs to avoid that bridge.

From our neighbors.

But the consideration and making the commitment to build this building going forward is what this question is asking.

And I think you should reconsider your vote and put it on the ballot and let the town decide.

Isn't that what everybody's always said?

Let the town decide, not just the people who go to town meeting for the funding issue.

Let the entire town decide if they want that building closer to their homes and businesses.

Thank you.

See, I wasn't— thank you, Doreen.

I wasn't mad at anybody tonight.

Aren't you glad?

Is there anybody else for community speak?

Sir, I'm right— just your name and where you live, sir, please.

Um, James Dupont, 118, uh, 128 Elm Street East.

I almost said 115 North Main until about a few years ago.

I live across the street and Habitat for Humanity.

Oh, I've got the— this is, as they say now, something completely different.

I've got a prepared statement.

Uh, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm doing this as a private citizen.

I'm not part of any movement or political group.

Simply, I am a 26-year officeholder in the town of Rainham, Bridgewater-Rainham School Committee selectman.

Uh, believe it or not, uh, Cemetery Commission.

Very briefly.

Yeah, story for another time.

I have a prepared statement that I, I will leave a copy with your town administrator for the minutes, and I'm not asking for any action or vote by the board, but this is something that I think you need to hear.

Good evening, members of the board.

I come tonight to deliver a message regarding a matter of grave and immediate importance to the town of Seekonk, its local elected officials, and its residents.

The issue is twofold.

First, it concerns the decades-long underfunding by the Massachusetts State Legislature of the various categories of so-called local aid, which, as all of you know, is a significant factor in setting the rate of a local property tax and hence how much the property owners are asked by you to pay.

From a couple of them tonight, I believe.

This brings me to my second point: where does so-called state revenue come from?

The answer is it comes from every resident and business in every city and town, including Seekonk.

Why isn't that money being returned to the people like you who need it for day-to-day things like police, fire, seniors, schools, fire stations in remote sections of your town?

It was a discussion tonight.

It's been my experience and I've been checking this since 1973, that our state legislators have not made full funding of local aid a priority.

Members of the majority party bemoan how tough things are this year on Beacon Hill, and you're already hearing that.

The minority party elected representatives shrug their shoulders and say, there isn't much I can do about it.

Last year, our town's annual budget process resulted in a failure to pay the regional School District's annual assessment.

I served on the Bridgewater-Raynham School Committee for 18 years.

I'm the first person to graduate from Bridgewater-Raynham to serve on that committee.

After a failed Prop 2.5 override, a large layoff of school employees then followed— 40— and are projected another 30 this year.

A resident I discussed this with said, sounds like bad management to me.

I responded that it wasn't bad management, but rather a shortfall caused by our state legislators not fully funding aid to education.

Chapter 70, the biggest category of local aid.

I don't think I need to explain that further to this board.

His response— hear these words— sounds like our local government mismanaged their relationships with our state legislators.

Madam Chairman, this leads me to the conclusion that the time has come for all local officials to demand, not ask, that their respective state legislators change the way local aid is calculated from the current here's what's left to a here's a fixed percentage of how much your city or town produced in terms of state tax revenues.

Whenever you ask them for more, they always say, well, are you going to get it from.

When you ask for more, you feel like it's Oliver Twist.

You want more.

It seems eminently fair that if your town provides the services that lead a resident and their income tax, or a business to locate in your town, then a fixed portion of the state taxes paid by them should go back to you.

As long as our state reps and state senators can get lauded for getting us half a loaf, then the residents and businesses will be told to make up the difference.

And you— not the Governor, not your state representative, not your state senator— you will have to bear the brunt of the public's ire when taxes go up and services go down.

We need to change the way local aid is calculated as well as distributed.

You've heard the words subject to appropriation.

Who does that?

The Board of Selectmen?

School Committee?

The governor?

No.

An 8th grade student in social studies would know that the appropriating body is the legislature.

And we need to change the way local aid is calculated as well as distributed, make it a fixed percentage of the state revenue that came from each city and town.

I worked for the Department of Revenue for almost 20 years in the litigation bureau.

The Bureau of Local Services, while I was a selectman, Would you like to know how much sales tax came out of Seaconch in January?

Call them up tomorrow.

They'll tell you.

They know already how much you're giving them.

If the state has a shortfall— I'll conclude with this, Madam Chairman— if the state has a shortfall, let them raise taxes.

When was the last time the state raised taxes?

They teach you in trial prep, don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

The answer is 1975.

The temporary surcharge, which did not result in full funding of Chapter 70.

And I am here to say to the Board, if the state has a shortfall, let them raise taxes or do massive layoffs to accommodate that shortfall in state funds.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the Board's time, and as Leverett Dirksen in 1964 gave— took to the U.S. Senate floor to break the filibuster on the Civil Rights Act, Search your hearts.

I'll leave a copy of this with Mr. Kadeem for your comments.

I don't ask for anything further from that, but I'm simply saying to people, consider your— search your heart this fall when you vote in November.

And if in Chapter 70, I have been monitoring since 1973, and at 2 consecutive town meetings in Rainham, I asked the superintendent of schools— was a local Rainham boy, I've known since he was a bump in his mother's belly.

Ryan Powers, I asked him, in your 30 years as an educator, have you ever once, ever once seen Chapter 70 fully funded?

And in front of 208 voters and taxpayers, he said no.

I've been following it since 1973, and I'm sure the board and the town administrator here know the words when you get that cherry sheet.

Pro rata share.

Hogwash.

A deal's a deal.

Give us our money.

We have things to do.

You have police officers, firefighters, teachers, highway department, and you people take the brunt of it.

And I'm tired of seeing people that work as hard as, as this board does— I was a selectman many years in my town— get accused of bad management, overspending, blah blah blah.

Well, if you got full funding of Chapter 70, Madam Chairman, through you to the town administrator, would you be asking people for a debt exclusion?

And I will just close with by saying I was a founding— one of the founding members of Citizens for Limited Taxation.

I helped— I helped write— I can't take much credit— Proposition 2.5, help put it on the ballot.

But I said that will only work if the property tax is not the sole source of revenue.

And I don't see long lines of state employees walking out of state buildings with pink slips, but my school committee had to give them to 40 hardworking people who have done no wrong.

And I appreciated very much the budget presentation by the fire department.

I happen to have been the paper, grew up across the street from the fire station in Rainham.

So I'm one of those guys, I lived in 3 houses and 2 of them are within 500 yards of each other.

Thank the board for its time.

I'll leave this with Mr. Kadeem.

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else from the community that would like to say anything?

Seeing none other business, I have no other business.

Um, Sean, you have anything?

Uh, no.

Nope.

Town Administrator's report?

Nothing at this time, Madam Chair.

Okay.

We'll do liaison reports.

Accounts payable warrants have been signed.

TV9 is a meeting next Thursday night at 6 PM at Cable 9, which I'll be attending.

Okay.

Bristol County Advisory Board?

Nothing at this time.

Thank you.

Do we have anything from the Medeiros Farm?

Uh, nothing new.

Nothing.

Okay.

Um, comments?

Um, Gary, go for it.

Speaking of Medeiros Farm, their last meeting they were going to contact the chair and the vice chair and and the rest of the members kind of objected to that.

And so you were waiting for an invitation from them to get together to have a discussion.

Did that ever happen?

We have not had a discussion.

No, no.

Okay, doesn't mean it won't happen.

Oh no, no, but yeah, okay, wait.

And I would just want to say this, um, in a tough budget year Um, bless you.

I mentioned several times about the potential of, or possibility of, doing something with Wheeler School to use their facilities.

And have you done anything, Sean, with that?

I was just waiting for the chair to set something up.

Okay, we Right.

Yeah, because if I understand what's going to happen next with the Madeiras Farm, they're meeting next week, I think it is Monday.

Monday.

Okay.

And they're going to review all of the RFPs, right?

And they're going to choose a consultant or consultants— designer.

Designer.

And they got $825,000 to spend, right?

Correct.

Okay.

It makes no sense to me as a businessman that you would take and spend all that town money on substance of design if we still have a potential or a possibility of a Wheeler school option.

So I will not— if it comes here to sign the contract, I will not sign that until— unless and until I'm satisfied that we've tried to do something with Wheeler and we were unsuccessful.

Because if If we can save ourselves millions of dollars on the design and construction of, uh, soccer fields and the maintenance with the Wheeler option, I think that has to be fully explored, explored first.

So that's my take on that, and that's all I got.

Thank you.

Yeah, Pam, I have nothing tonight, thanks.

No?

Okay.

Right, nothing at this time.

Okay, I have a couple of things, couple of announcements, um, from the, uh, animal control officer.

She set up a 2026 annual rabies clinic for March 14th at the Seacock Public Safety Building, Fire Division, 500 Taunton Avenue.

The clinic hours are from 9:00 in the morning till noon The attending veterinarian is Dr. Truesdale from Central Avenue Veterinary Clinic.

Um, the location has been secured, so if you need the— this service, March 14th, 2026.

And I do have a question, Chief.

Do they have to make an appointment or do they just come?

I've never been, so I don't know how it runs.

Do you?

Madam Chair, I believe that's just all set up through the animal control office.

We just provide the space.

I don't think you need an appointment.

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to answer that for you, ma'am.

Okay, I didn't know.

I've never been, so I don't, I don't know how it runs.

I know, I just figured maybe you did.

That's okay.

No, it's, it's actually run very nicely.

We open one side of the building, they come in one side and go out the other.

Okay, so they don't need an appointment.

They have multiple desk set up, um, so they check in and they do their, their rabies clinic.

Um, but it's, uh, a well-oiled machine at this point.

Oh good.

They are also saying that they're expecting the town of Rehoboth to join them too.

Um, the Seekonk Fire Department would like you to know that they're going to be at Walmart this Saturday, February 21st, from 10 to 2, collecting new pajamas for children and teens in need.

The 19th Annual Boston Bruins PJ Drive.

The drive ends March 15th, and our town-wide goal is 900 pairs of PJs.

Donation bins are located at Human Services, Arcade Avenue, Town Hall here on Peck Street, the library on Newman Avenue, and the animal shelters.

But the police department themselves will be at Walmart from 10 to to this Saturday collecting PJs.

I don't remember what the goal was last year, but I know we really overexceeded the goal of the pajama— the PJ drive through the Bruins.

Um, I would— I'll just like to let you know that I attended the grand opening of Bob's Discount Furniture, and, uh, if you are in need of any furniture, go down and give them a visit.

It's a beautiful store.

It is brand new.

It's wide open.

The sales department is very nice.

We had a nice little grand opening and people were already there to get in.

So I'd like to thank them.

As a matter of fact, I talked to them today.

I'd like to thank them for the invitation, and I was glad to be a representative of the town at the grand opening.

So do we have everybody good?

Okay, I'll take a motion to adjourn at 8:24 PM.

Until the next board meeting, Wednesday, March 4th, 2026, to enter into executive session, not to— and to re-enter into open session to conduct a strategy session with respect to negotiations with the United Steelworkers Supervision Unit Local 9517-09 per Mass General Law Chapter 30, subsection 21A3, as having the discussion in open session would be detrimental to the litigation and bargaining position of the town, to conduct strategy sessions with respect to negotiations with the United Steelworkers Clerical Union Local 9517-10 per Mass General Law Chapter 30A, subsection 21A3, as having the discussion in open session would be detrimental to the litigation or bargaining position of the town.

C, to conduct a strategy session with respect to negotiations with DPW AFSCME AFSCME Council 93 per Mass General Law Chapter 38, subsection 21A3, as having the discussion in open session would be detrimental to the litigation bargaining position of the town, indeed to consider accepting the executive session minutes of January 21st, 2026.

So moved, Gary Sega.

Second, Pam Posey.

Gary Sega, right?

Pam Posey, aye.

Michael Healy, aye.

Michelle Hynes, I— thank you, everyone.